European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 355–373 | Cite as

Convergent evolution and the limits of natural selection

Original paper in Philosophy of Biology

Abstract

Stephen Jay Gould argued that replaying the “tape of life” would result in a radically different evolutionary outcome. Some biologists and philosophers, however, have pointed to convergent evolution as evidence for robust replicability in macroevolution. These authors interpret homoplasy, or the independent origination of similar biological forms, as evidence for the power of natural selection to guide form toward certain morphological attractors, notwithstanding the diversionary tendencies of drift and the constraints of phylogenetic inertia. In this paper, I consider the implications of homoplasy for the debate over the nature of macroevolution. I argue that once the concepts of contingency and convergence are fleshed out, it becomes clear that many instances of homoplasy fail to negate Gould’s overarching thesis, and may in fact support a Gouldian view of life. My argument rests on the distinction between parallelism and convergence, which I defend against a recent challenge from developmental biology. I conclude that despite the difficulties in defining and identifying parallelism, the concept remains useful and relevant to the contingency controversy insofar as it underscores the common developmental origins of iterated evolution.

Keywords

Adaptationism Contingency Convergence Macroevolution Parallelism Stephen Jay Gould 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to John Beatty, Alex Rosenberg, V. Louise Roth and several anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abouheif, E. (2008). Parallelism as the pattern and process of mesoevolution. Evolution and Development, 10(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundson, R. (1994). Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philosophy of Science, 61, 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt, J., & Reznick, D. (2007). Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: what have we learned about the genetics of adaptation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In G. Wolters & J. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beatty, J. (2006). Replaying life’s tape. Journal of Philosophy, 103(7), 336–362.Google Scholar
  6. Bolker, J. A., & Raff, R. A. (1996). Developmental genetics and traditional homology. Bioessays, 18(6), 489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandon, R. N., & McShea, D. (2012). Biology’s first law: The tendency for diversity and complexity to increase in evolutionary systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Budd, G. E. (2001). Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: the evidence from the Cambrian Fauna. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 240(3–4), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkhardt, F., Browne, J., Porter, D. M., & Richmond, M. (Eds.). (1993). The correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 8, 1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Caldwell, M. W. (2002). From fins to limbs to fins: limb evolution in fossil marine reptiles. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 112, 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless forms most beautiful. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Conway Morris, S. (1998). The crucible of creation: The Burgess Shale and the rise of animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Conway Morris, S. (2003). Life’s solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conway Morris, S., & Gould, S. J. (1998). Showdown on the Burgess Shale. Natural History, 107(10), 48–55.Google Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, E. H., & Erwin, D. H. (2006). Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans. Science, 311, 796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Diogo, R. (2005). Evolutionary convergences and parallelisms: their theoretical differences and the difficulty of discriminating them in a practical context. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 735–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donley, J. M., et al. (2004). Convergent evolution in mechanical design of lamnid sharks and tunas. Nature, 429, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster, S. A., & Baker, J. A. (2004). Evolution in parallel: new insights from a classic system. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 456–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson, G., & Wagner, G. (2000). Canalization in evolutionary genetics: a stabilizing theory? BioEssays, 22, 372–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin, B. C. (2001). How the leopard changed its spots: The evolution of complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  24. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 205(1161), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, B. K. (2007). Homology or homoplasy: dichotomy or continuum? Journal of Human Evolution, 52, 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jablonksi, D. (2002). Survival without recovery after mass extinctions. PNAS, 99, 8139–8144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Land, M. F., & Fernald, R. D. (1992). The evolution of eyes. Annual Review Neuroscience, 15, 1–29.Google Scholar
  29. Lewens, T. (2009). Seven types of adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy, 24, 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in evolutionary science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Losos, J. B., Jackman, T. R., Larson, A., de Queiroz, K., & Rodríguez-Schettino, L. (1998). Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of Island Lizards. Science, 279(5359), 2115–2118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maclaurin, J., & Sterelny, K. (2008). What is biodiversity? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, L. D., & Meehan, T. J. (2005). Extinction may not be forever. Naturwissenschaften, 92(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millstein, R. L. (2000). Chance and macroevolution. Philosophy of Science, 67, 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orzack, S., & Sober, E. (1994). Optimality models and the test of adaptationism. American Naturalist, 143, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearce, T. (in press). Convergence and parallelism in evolution—A neo Gouldian account. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, R. (2007). Is convergence more than an analogy? Homoplasy and its implications for macroevolutionary predictability. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Powell, R. (2009). “Contingency and Convergence in Macroevolution.” Journal of Philosophy, 106(7), 390–404.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenberg, A. (2001). How is biological explanation possible? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(4), 735–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanger, T. J., Losos, J. B., & Gibson-Brown, J. J. (2008). A developmental staging series for the lizard genus Anolis: a new system for the integration of evolution, development, and ecology. Journal of Morphology, 269(2), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shapiro, M. D., Marks, M. E., Peichel, C. L., Blackman, B. K., Nereng, K. S., Jónsson, B., et al. (2004). Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature, 428, 717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shapiro, M. D., Bell, M. A., & Kingsley, D. M. (2006). Parallel genetic origins of pelvic reduction in vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(37), 13753–13758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sober, E. (2005). Is drift a serious alternative to natural selection when it comes to explaining adaptive complexity? In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Philosophy, biology and life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stayton, C. T. (2008). Is convergence surprising? An examination of the frequency of convergence in simulated datasets. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 252, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: an introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Thattai, M., & van Oudenaarden, A. (2001). Intrinsic noise in gene regulatory networks. PNAS, 98, 8614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valentine, J. W., & Erwin, D. H. (1987). Interpreting great developmental experiments: the fossil record. In R. A. Raff & E. C. Raff (Eds.), Development as an evolutionary process (pp. 71–107). New York: Liss.Google Scholar
  48. Vermeij, G. J. (2006). Historical contingency and the purported uniqueness of evolutionary innovations. PNAS, 103(6), 1804–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner, G. P. (1988). The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 1, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, G. P., & Schwenk, K. (2000). Evolutionarily stable configurations: functional integration and the evolution of phenotypic stability. Evolutionary Biology, 31, 155–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wake, D. B. (1991). Homoplasy: the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitation. American Naturalist, 138, 543–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waters, K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 551–579.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, G. C. (1985). A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology. In R. Dawkins & M. Ridley (Eds.), Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology, vol. 2 (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Zuker, C. S. (1994). On the evolution of eyes: would you like it simple or compound? Science, 265, 742–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations